The Out-Lawyer's Blog

An Alameda County Child Support officer confirms that Hans now owes more than $30k in child support.

Thanks, but we heard that once already….

A teacher at the children’s school testified that, in her opinion, Nina would not abandon her children – “Those kids were her life.”

A Barnes & Noble employee, store records and the store camera corroborated that Hans bought the two “murder books” (police procedurals about murder investigations) that were found among his effects.  The sale was on September 8, 2006. [Recall that Nina went missing on September 3.] Reiser paid cash.

About a year before the day Nina went missing, Hans complained by phone to the county child abuse hotline.  He claimed that Nina was suffering from a bizarre mental illness that caused her to complain about the children’s mental health (this was based on her assertion that too many violent video games had warped their minds), all to get attention for Nina.  This was – according to Hans – evidence that Nina suffered from “Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome”.  [Only a software guru with time on his hands could come up with that one!] He also complained that his son’s ear infection was neglected by Nina. One imagines that complaints like this are common during child custody battles.  Again, the jury is too sophisticated to assume that Hans was homicidal based on this stuff alone.

But Hans tendency to obsess does seem to be recuring theme….

ZING!

Former O.P.D. officer, Ben Denson, who saw the couple frequently during child exchanges at the police station said -

“He never put his hands on her but, you know, I could tell by the way he was looking at her, there was menace in his eyes…It was very hostile….I told her, ‘You need to get yourself a gun.’”

That had to hurt.

DuBois did the standard cross examination – designed to remind the jury that a police witness is probably pro-prosecution and so on, but the damage was done.  Most members of the jury will not believe that former officer Denson was imagining things or making things up just to support the DA’s case. 

But they will be sophisticated enough not to convict someone just because of inter-spousal hostility. 

However, the defense is gradually losing ground here on the character issue:

Nina is looking (at the moment) less and less like someone who would have voluntarily vanished from her children’s lives for a whole year, and --

Hans – while not yet portrayed as the homicidal character the DA would prefer – is looking just a bit more dangerous.

Faced with positive character evidence about Nina, DuBois asked whether it would change the witness’s favorable opinion if the witness learned that Nina was responsible for grand theft.  An objection to the defense question was sustained. 

What was going on?

There is – as of now - no evidence of Nina stealing anything, and – at least from the judge’s point of view – there may not be any.  Counsel may not ask a witness about “facts not in evidence” especially if there are never going to come in; to rule otherwise would allow a back door to inadmissible evidence or non-evidence. 

But it could be proper to ask a question like this if DuBois had good reason to believe that such evidence will later be introduced in the trial.  I assume that if the court had been made aware of such a pending defense witness, the ruling would likely have been different, e.g. – “I will allow the question subject to tying it in later.  If not I will then entertain a motion to strike.” 

My guess:  The defense has little or no credible evidence of the grand theft incident(s), other than the possible testimony of Hans, himself. Also: DuBois probably thinks he is better off having floated the “Nina is a thief” suggestion in front of the witness (knowing it will prompt an objection) instead of risking some clever riposte by the witness, such as:  “Even if it turns out that Nina Reiser has stolen money, it doesn’t change my opinion about Nina’s love for her kids, the dynamic between them,” etc, etc.

The takeaway point:  When an experienced police officer warns a wife to get a gun after taking a good look at hubby, and when the wife later turns up missing under suspicious circumstances, the warning takes on an unforgettable, almost nightmarish quality.  The bad images are accumulating.

JBG